August 11, 2011

The NYT has a detailed live-blog. We watched here at Meadhouse. I slept through part of it. Not really the fault of the candidates. But I'll just say that I think Bachmann and Romney stood out as the strongest candidates. Both are good at taking somewhat tough questions and reframing them. Both seem presidential. Huntsman, Pawlenty and Cain, I'd say, were weak. Santorum was squirrelly. Gingrich would rankle at ordinary questions, calling them "gotcha questions," then go on to talk about how we have to talk about "ideas." Ron Paul got so angry — usually while spouting pacifism, ironically. Both Gingrich and Paul have a nasty demeanor of a sort that, I think, will never make it to the White House.

Much as the Iowa "debate" amongst my Cowboys victory is stirring, Buckley said this:

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/8/2/82428/64105

‘BuckPac Kills!’

Lowell Weicker, the one-time Republican senator and perpetual liberal gasbag from the state of Connecticut, was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1970. He met his waterloo in 1988, when the September 2 issue of NR announced the formation of “Buckleys for Lieberman.” The impromptu association’s stated purpose was “to generate support for the defeat of Lowell Weicker” by endorsing his challenger, Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, it was explained, “is a moderate democrat, and it is always possible that he will progress in the right direction.” There was, on the other hand, “no such hope for Lowell Weicker.”

The group (which came to be known simply as “BuckPac”) contained several vital organs, such as the precisely named “Horse’s Ass Committee,” the purpose of which was “to document that Lowell Weicker is the Number One Horse’s Ass in the Senate.” This was accompanied by the “Degasification Committee,” which was “engaged in attempting to clean up the quality of public thought,” as well as in demonstrating that “the bombast, murk, and pomposity of Lowell Weicker’s public declarations are a threat to democratic ecology.” Every issue of NR leading up to the election featured a “Weicker Watch,” heralding the latest in the anti-Weicker crusade.

When BuckPac was first launched, Weicker held a 17-point lead over Lieberman in the polls. By November 2 that lead had vanished, and Weicker was toppled. “BuckPac Kills!” proclaimed the December 9, 1988, issue of NR. “By the mere act of pointing at the nudity of the emperor, the searing point was made. Namely that Mr. Weicker was an arrogant, bigoted bore and that the Republicans who, as galley slaves, had voted for him should feel free to vote for the Democratic alternative . . .” That alternative, Lieberman, still occupies Weicker’s Senate seat, attending our 50th-anniversary gala in October. We continue to regard him as a marked improvement over Mr. Weicker.

I thought it was a good debate. Pawlenty probably lost it. I don't find Ron Paul angry - he knows *the base* can't stand some of his positions but he presents them over and over anyway. He likely will do well in the straw poll. Huntsman did fine. He doesn't need to join the red meat crowd - there are plenty of those folks.

BTW - while I don't know why Gingrich is even up there, I think Ron Paul has every reason to be pissed, and if you guys keep penalizing men for being "pricks" (as so many were calling McCain this morning) we're going to lose out on a lot of decent talent:

When are you guys going to admit - especially to yourselves - the problem isn't them being assholes, but y'all being pussies?

T-Paw is done, IMAHO. Bachmann is close to being toast! Newt did himself proud by bashing Wallace. Cain is a good man and tough. Romney needs to get a buzz haircut. Paul has a few more months before he's toast. Huntsman showed a glimmer of a spark there. Santorum's got some life left but probably not much.

Perry's going to raise lots of waves and start to swamp Romney. Palin would knock everyone down except for Perry. So. IMAHFO, Newt will make the third pony along with Perry and Palin for much of the hunting season; Huntsman's got an outside chance.

So, go home now and rest up for this fall's events; it might get exciting.

Saint Croix, I used to work for a stellar physician. At a teaching hospital. I was his secretary. Sometimes, I'd pipe up a diagnosis. No, I wasn't wrong. But if the secretary could guess how ill a patient was ... it wasn't a triumph. But its opposite. Way too late in the ballgame, if I noticed it.

So. To help you out here. While I'm distressed that obama could really, really win in 2012. I even see the tactic he may use, clearly.

Up ahead, around next spring ... he's gonna scissor the budget by a trillion dollars. (Coming in under out anticipated GDP. Coming in UNDER $14-trillion. And, he's gonna look like the messiah. Again.)

What's he gonna cut?

I've already "picked" student loans. Doing away with the fact that today even people in bankruptcy can't discharge this debt.

No. I have no idea how this challenge gets accomplished!

But it will be like the "free mortgages" were back in 2008.

Remember HOPE & CHANGE?

Sometimes you can repeat an old trick..

Why not? Penn & Teller pull them off all the time!

Mitt Romney keeps blowing it! (As Trump said ... where was he when he should have hung Boehner out to dry?) Stinking ceiling raising deal! All insiders. All forming their usual circle jerk.

While who knows?

Merkel may find the German people more angry at her than you know. And, if so? Obama doesn't have to do anything at all. Europe will discover "borders." The Belgian gnomes may be as politically alive ahead as Algore. (And, he ISN'T.) Do I need a sarcasm tag?

As the world turns, we don't fall off.

Oh, yeah. When the pull out from Irak and Afghanistan ... there's another windfall with a trillion saved.

It will be like watching a money machine gearing up. And, the republicans? Screwed, again.

While I think Sarah Palin's bus "ONE NATION" ... is the name of an Independent Party. But I've already said that. I hope she sells buttons. I hope Trump is her veep. And, I can see PALIN/TRUMP in TRUMP AND DUMP "O".

When you mention cutting student loans, do you mean you think he'll stop issuing federal student loans (or at least reduce them), or do you think he'll forgive student loan debts so people can spend that money in the economy instead?

I assume you mean some degree of the former, but I'd be particularly intrigued by the latter right now. ;-)

Can't midwesterners get along. The bickering between Bachmann and Pawlenty was very nasty. I was glad to see that the confrontation did not become physical....Gingrich was smart and combative, but far from Presidential. If you're overweight and cheat on your wife, go for genial and not combative. Observe Clinton....Cain has the baritone and the self assurance, but when he strays from his areas of expertise, he sounds weak....Santorum is likable, but this election will not be decided on who takes the most forthright anti abortion stand.....Paul is cranky, opinionated, and unelectable. His ideas deserve an outing but it's hard to win a Republican primary by taking a pro Castro position.....Hunstman looks like some kind of Romney clone.....By default Romney is the winner. I don't think anyone loves him, but that same slick blandness also serves as a kind of teflon.

No Hoop. He's going to screw the banks. And, make the student loan obligations already choking lots of people, including lots of minority people, disappear with a stroke of the pen.

Actually, money FOR school will become like welfare. (Or? What was once called the GI Bill. Then, it was a very good thing. Plus, then, women left their jobs in droves, and went back home to be home-makers.) Times are different now.

I don't know how the debt would get waved away.

But then back when America was involved in Vietnam, our soldiers were drafted. Avoiding the draft meant some kids ran to Canada. And, the stain remained. Even after Nixon voided the draft in 1973. Carter waved a magic wand. And, the "crime" of draft evasion was voided.

But ya know what? I don't remember HOW.

"How," here, has nothing to do with it. But the "cut" will seem real. While Congress plays with sham cuts.

Obama is not "agenda-less" ... He wants to win re-election. And, when he dithers ... he's like Mohammed Ali "playing butterfly." He might not look like much of an opponent. But he'll sting like a bee. (And, he's mean.)

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm just guessing.

But tonight? It wasn't a good night for the GOP.

I bet Trump laughs when he realizes what's back stage at the Apprentice?

Bachmann is religiously oriented. Not mentioned. But out there. It's her handicap. And, yet she said "she's gonna appeal to democraps? And, independents? Why didn't she throw in "And, McCain's Hillary voters," while she was at it?

Newt Gingrich wants to return to Congress. (Even though there's "PRO-FORMA" going on to prevent Obama from making recess appointments.) But Newt says he'd call them back to repeal Obamacare. Dodd's crap. And, Oxley. Whatever. Did Newt forget how he crapped up the dozen years he had? Do you expect people to forget?

What a punch of vaudevillian acts! They snap there fingers, and soft-shoe dance. And, they think they're ready for prime time. Nope. Not.

But what can you do.

Mitt Romney, if we're lucky, will meet George Romney's fate. And, then, maybe. Just maybe. These stinking "entitlement" families will fade into the woodwork. Or get no further out of the "tent" than the parking lots of their country clubs.

I bet the show though was gangbusters at the White House. Where obama practically had to get up and dance! "Man, bring them on," he must have said.

What is it about the Miss America contests that are more fun? Trump's da judge?

What if people at home, gazing in horror, just said, "you're not fucking serious, are you?"

Oh, yeah. Politics is not a religious experience! You know how I know? If it was the Pope would'a been up there. He'd be in a white dress. And, when he raised his arms up, he'd tell everyone they were being blessed.

I don't know how you guys watch these things. God bless you for being such erstwhile reporters.

Doug Wright -- In another forum, you went on and on about how you expect Obama not to surrender the presidency if he loses in 2012. Then, when I told you such foolish talk will not help Republicans will elections, you called me a socialist.

I see what I think would be a fine cabinet for a president - that's actually a lot of thoughtful people up there - but, even though Mitt and Newt can look presidential, I don't see anyone I whole-heartedly want to vote for.

I also think Ann's right - Huntsman, Cain, and Pawlenty might as well get out now.

I think Jeb Bush is considering running. My understanding is that his last public utterance was the same thing.

I want to like Perry, Romney, Palin, or any of them. More than anything, though, I think that for the good of the country we need an experienced politician who is comfortable surrounding himself with wise policymakers. And that's Jeb Bush.

the only person onstage who was capable of extemperaneous speech that didn't rely on canned campaign slogans was...newt!! he probably has too much baggage to be the candidate, but boy he would debate the pants off of barack! the rest of the pack, i'm sorry to say, are a bunch of bores (and a couple of bigots). i'm not among those who are waiting for perry to stop praying long enough to engage in politics...i'd still like to see palin in the race though. otherwise, i'm not sure that 'meh' will really prove to be enough to send barack back to chicago..or hawai'i..or indonesia..or kenya..or wherever the hell he is from.

It's August, 2011. It's too early for this stuff to start. Fifteen months of politicians ranting and fifteen months of political ads is just too much. Sad thing is, not one of them seems capable of actual leadership. Is this the best we can do?

I was reading an old Time at my vet's yesterday. It was so funny the way they were trying to build up Huntsman. "Obama is terrified of Huntsman. He's the one the Republicans would nominate if they are smart. Oh, that Huntsman, he's a killer. Boy, I hope the Republicans don't nominate Huntsman. Obama can't sleep at night, worrying about that Huntsman."

I don't know what's funnier, when liberals try to talk us into a candidate, or away from one.

"Both (Bachmann and Romney) are good at taking somewhat tough questions and reframing them."

You say this like this is a good thing.

Here's a novel idea: How about the politicos answering the questions asked?

This is one of the banes of politics...questions asked are rarely, if ever, answered, but are "reframed" so the politicians can feed us canned soundbites while pretending to provide substantive and pertinent responses, always evading the actual questions and witholding honest replies.

You can blame Bachmann's failure to answer the submissive wives question on liberals all you want (It's Obama's fault). But this is what she was asked:

“When you were running for Congress you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained quote, the Lord said to be submissive. Wives you are to be submissive to your husbands. As President, would you be submissive to your husband.”

She didn't challenge the question but she didn't answer it either. I think we are entitled to know what she thinks being a "submissive" wife means, particularly if she's president. What if her husband tells her to change her trade policy? Does she believe she has to do that even if she disagrees with him, because she's been enjoined by God to "be a submissive wife."

Don't blame anyone else for her failure to deal with this question. It's her responsibility to answer it.

If your post has not appeared then it might be lost, as Pogo has suggested, but it has not been "censured", in any case. At most it has been censored. Once it is posted then we can censure it, especially if it is libelous, in which case perhaps it should be censored.

Yeah, okay. What if Hillary told Bill this is how healthcare should be run?

Every husband or wife has some control over their spouse. That's why most of us want to know a bit about the husband or spouse.

A lot of my like/dislike feelings on Republicans have little to do with their politics and everything to do with their personality. Bachmann is short, she's uptight, and she gives off a vibe of being afraid.

None of that screams leader to me. I totally see her trapped in the ladies room. "Help!"

The Repubs should nominate an outsider who can align with some of the Tea Party ideas. The 2012 election will be Beltway vs. the rest of the country. Romney or Perry could pull that off. I can't wait til a debate where Obama is asked "So you promised to go over the federal budget line by line, Did you do that and how much waste did you cut?" [of course the MSM will never ask him that].

I think this is why Mitch Daniels isn't running, by the way. He had some privacy issues and did not want the circus to come to town.

This is a real problem. And normally we shouldn't be interested in how candidates define their marriage responsibilities. But (if the questioners' set-up is true) she apparently opened the door to it, and she should be accountable for explaining it coherently to us.

And power-sharing in ordinary marriage doesn't seem analogous to living by a Bible-based interpretation of "a submissive wife."

I agree with AJ Lynch -- the best candidate the Republicans can field, one with the best chance of winning, will be an outsider running against the DC establishment. Is anyone outside of DC not sick of what goes on there?

It happened weeks ago. It appeared then disappeared later that night. I didn't care that much at the time because I guess it was rather mean spirited and maybe Althouse has FAS in her history. But to have the abject filth posted by that sicko stand is... wow... if you think it funny... you're effing sick.

Count me in with AJ and Mad Man--no DC insiders--As for Newt? his day has come and gone; the contract with America was a masterstroke, but when put in a position of leadership, Newton blew it big time. He as been reduced to gasbag--rather a mirror image of our nincompoop in chief

And power-sharing in ordinary marriage doesn't seem analogous to living by a Bible-based interpretation of "a submissive wife."

Well, marriage has been around for seveal thousand years, and for most of those years the model was that the man had to cherish his wife and the wife had to obey her husband.

I'm not sure the feminist unisex model is "ordinary," but I am sure there is all sorts of power-sharing in every marriage, and you (or the media) really shouldn't get caught up in how Bachmann decided to become a tax lawyer.

Mitch Daniels decided not to run after talking with his family. Sarah Palin is going to talk with her family before she makes her decision. Husbands have control over their wives. Wives have control over their husbands. Shocking!

"Mitt, you said that you didn't want to take out the garbage. But then you remembered that the Bible says you should cherish your wife. So you took out the garbage. When you are President, will you continue to take out the garbage? Will you keep on cherishing your wife? Are you just going to treat your wife like a queen, like she's royalty? Why can't she take out the garbage? What's wrong with your relationship that you are so eager to please your wife? Answer the question!"

What is perpetually disappointing is how little time is spent by media, pundits and even us, discussing actual position differences, and what we think the candidate will do about the nations problems. All the conversation is about style and the horse race. Then we wonder why we get style and little change. The result is that the dysfunctional congress runs the country with no clear mandate from the people. MS Herman is right - it is basically a Miss America Pageant with very serious consequences.

A problem with the electorate is that you can't really be a strong reformer and still get elected. A lot of people are afraid of big change, and any strong personality with conviction that could make real reforms makes the huge middle think of some caricature of Mussolini. Fear keeps us on the same track heading toward the cliff, because going of the tracks is soooo scary.

And Crack, the problem with McCain is never that he's a lion, but that he's strongest when he's wrong, and eats his own with more gusto than the enemy.

Well, Romney has that killer CEO-robot smile--and the bodacious hair-do--and that goes over well in Zombieville. Doesn't really matter what he says--corporations are people too!, or quoting the Book of Moron, or Mein Kampf --WASP-zionist trash jus' like him. Bachmann's a bit too..bauernlumpenish, tho' maybe if she starts chanting from the Book of Revelation she'll get the Herd going.

Me too, but mostly if you-know-who doesn't get in. I'd take Perry over Mitt, at this point, though.

The problem with McCain is never that he's a lion, but that he's strongest when he's wrong, and eats his own with more gusto than the enemy.

Understanding McCain's negatives, I still see this whole thing different:

The American people will not acknowledge they've been delusional. You can see it in Ann's claim to have been *rational* in voting for Obama. You can see it in the response to Obama's 2008 campaign, period. In the over-the-top hostility to Bush. And in the way McCain is treated. You can doubt me all you want, but I say - as I've always said - America is a country that got feminized, and now, seeing the results, is seriously back-peddling - but without being willing to admit anything. That cognitive dissonance, which is cowardice, is disturbing because it means A) we, as a people, can't learn anything from it and B) because we're not being true to ourselves, but reacting many times against this unspoken shit, we're still in a state of madness.

Long story short, Bush and McCain were, and still are, being mistreated by a cowardly nation that couldn't and can't admit it's scared (and envious) of straight men. Cowboys. Pricks. Leaders. This has nothing to do with McCain and everything to do with an electorate more prone to side with those black kids wilding (or the London rioters) than those charged with, and determined, to stop them.

I see all of you dancing around the issues - newAge, socialism, communism, etc. - but the whole mindset, and what's happened to us and who the players are, has already been explained to you but you still go on like everything's normal. (Jane Fonda's a NewAge traitor? Fine, let's still admire her,...no question about what Jane Fonda means or why we shouldn't ban her ass.) This is NOT normal - it's cowardly. It's all about avoidance. Avoidance of yourselves.

Ron Paul? Well, he has some extreme positions that doom him as a nominee (government has no business telling employers breaking the law hiring illegals they can't do it..because employers should be free to hire and fire anyone???) - but on other matters he is dead right, sees things with perfect clarity, and has passion and good solutions!

Santorum? Sanctimonious tool.Gingrich lost his good moments with an overall impression of being a belligerant prick..Something that has a good deal to do with his descent into now being a marginal political figure.Pawlenty and Bachmann was Minnesota siblicide. Pawlenty bled from his own wounds, snide remarks, and Bachmann hitting back well on some occasions. But Bachmann was badly hurt. The big blows Pawlenty landed on her?

1. A relentless self-promoter that claims she was the Leader of Minnesota legislators, Leader in Congress, Leader of the Tea Party. The problem is that she wasn't according to Minnesota and House members, she just proclaims herself to be at news conferences.2. Pawlenty pointed out that as a Minnesota legislator then joining Congress - she has no accomplishment other than saying she is a "fighter" and thus able to get elected. No law was put through by her, no law was taken to repeal through her.3. Pawlenty pointed out that in Bachmann's spiel on how she "Led and Fought" on issue after issue each issue she mentioned from Minnesota onwards - Each Bachmann "cause" ended in defeat. "How can you be a leader if you cannot get others to join you and prevail on a single issue?"

Herman Cain and Huntsman I found thoughtful and I enjoyed what they brought to the debate. Neither will win the nomination, but like Ron Paul (and Newt when he wasn't ranting) they had good points.

Romney still has that plasticky aura...but again came across as bright, a good man, showed some class and a growing sense of control and gravitas.It will be interesting to see how Perry impacts him...because with the others fading..Perry is the only other strong candidate in the field. (Bachmanns relentless buildup of herself as a consequential player but being called out on not being a recognized leader by anyone other than herself, having no real accomplishments since entering politics other than being reelected and getting media time from relentless self-promotion (Weineresque), and "leading" her way to defeat after defeat ---is not good for her in the long haul.)

Romney still has that plasticky aura...but again came across as bright, a good man, showed some class and a growing sense of control and gravitas.

No Herr Cedarford--that's Romneytoid's LDS bunko salesman schtick. Not that I'd likely vote for a GOP-bot (or most Demos)...but given a choice, ANYONE but Mittens (and what do ...trad. germans think of mormon-masons, CF?? think..forget-me-not). Even Doc Paul or the Newtster (at least not a bunko guy) preferable.

I said Mitt Romney's a piece of phony shit. Somethin' you don't understand, joto? Actually let's expand--people who belong to the mormon cult should not be allowed to run for public office. Similar for Frau Bachmann --people who proclaim all sorts of extreme religious viewpoints (of whatever variety of judeo-christianty) should not be allowed to run for public office. Jefferson and Madison said as much.

Bachmann has denied evolution, discusses witches, chants from the Book of Revelation, etc. Not that that bothers the usual GOP-TP zombie. You're the wingnut here, Roger, as are most of the A-tards

Ron Paul is a certifiable libertarian--and in some respects he may appear to be crazy, but I know of no candidate other than perhaps Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich who is consistent with his beliefs--that said, I admire their intellectual consistency, but not electable. .

Pawlenty pointed out that in Bachmann's spiel on how she "Led and Fought" on issue after issue each issue she mentioned from Minnesota onwards - Each Bachmann "cause" ended in defeat. "How can you be a leader if you cannot get others to join you and prevail on a single issue?"

That's bogus analysis - the Republicans at the time were doomed in Congress, so Pawlenty's criticism is crazy. Even he wouldn't have been able to get anything through under the same circumstances, so not only does the charge require you, the listener, not to think (meaning Pawlenty is playing you for an idiot, which appears to be working) but Bachmann is right - she fought the good fight even when it was impossible, which is why she must be stopped now that she's in a position to do something.

You fell for the okie-doke, which is a good example of how politicians will play you.

Crack - "In the over-the-top hostility to Bush. And in the way McCain is treated. You can doubt me all you want, but I say - as I've always said - America is a country that got feminized.."

============

I wouldn't call it being feminized to have real concerns after 8 years and 1.4 trillion with 40K casualties - that McCain was an unchecked advocate for new Neocon wars of Adventure.During the campaign he was saying stuff like sending American troops to "advise and bring in weapons" in the Georgian struggle against the Russians, that we owed it to the Iraqis to stay decades if "that is what the noble people there want", how he would "surgically strike Iran" starting a war bigger than Iraq, and how Syria might be on a McCain Target List as well as new troop interventions in Somalia and Sudan.

And this was from a guy who was running around like a chicken with his head cut off on economic matters, showing some temper tantrums, and incoherent on stage on other issues.

It isn't being "feminized" to want that guy well away from the power of being able to start new neocon wars of adventure.Remember too that despite all McCains war medals from "suffering", his favorite son and grandson of admirals status, and pile of pals he gained being the Senate's military junket frontman - He was passed over for a Flag position (on matters of his temperment issues) and told to leave the Navy.

Yes, he "beats" most on military experience, but in 2008 and in 2012, the country is not interested in a guy looking to ignore America's problems for a new trillion dollar "war of adventure".

The militarists and neocons are a spent force unless Perry comes in and tries that route. And kills his chances of beating Obama by talking about some religious duty to smite Israel's enemies on request.

I hate when the candidates cooperate with one of those "raise your hand if you agree with..." questions. They should all agree ahead of time not to play along. They should designate one of them to explain why they are not agreeing to be dumb sheep about it. Each candidate deserves to have a chance to add a little color and nuance to their answer.

Ron Paul is a certifiable libertarian--and in some respects he may appear to be crazy, but I know of no candidate other than perhaps Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich who is consistent with his beliefs--that said, I admire their intellectual consistency, but not electable. .

I think his analysis of Iran was spot-on, except for the part about allowing them a nuclear weapon. We did start the shit, basically stirring up a hornet's nest, but to claim we should walk away now, at their most dangerous - because of a libertarian sense of ideological conviction - is nonsense.

That said, as we inch closer and closer to reality, I like listening to him and think he's smarter than most. Others may not like dealing with reality - because it doesn't give a shit about them and their feelings - but I do.

Ron Paul may not be electable - and for good reason - but we'd better listen to him because he's more on-point than most.

aprops Micheale's comments--the MSM commenters and pundits should be barred from asking questions--let the debaters ask the questions and keep the MSM scumbags off the floor entirely--they are fucking idiots

Roger J wrote:Ron Paul is a certifiable libertarian--and in some respects he may appear to be crazy, but I know of no candidate other than perhaps Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich who is consistent with his beliefs--that said, I admire their intellectual consistency, but not electable. .

SOO unelectable. And crazy people are often consistent in their beliefs. It's just that those beliefs are insane. It's funny that you mention muck iChat and Saunders in the same sentence as Paul because he is just as extreme in his worldview, which in many cases comes across to me as far left (Particularly when it comes to foreign policy). Which I think is why I often have the same vomit in my mouth reaction to lot of libertarians that i do to liberals when they start pontificating.

Roger J, prevaricator, time to make shit up, isn't it. the GOP's the party of the religious enthusiasts anyway --like Michele Bugman--well, the evangelicals and their pals in the mob (tho' granted the Mob's bipartisan). At least Newt and Paul, however....limited have some understanding of the US Constitution. Unlike you, teabugs, or most A-tards

And maybe Kant bothers you? Yeah. His philosophy--while a bit quaint-- produces that effect on most criminals, regardless of which party they belong to. Jefferson similar in a sense . Or the Bible (ie, real one, not the one GOP fundies or mormon trashuse)

Crack - "(meaning Pawlenty is playing you for an idiot, which appears to be working) but Bachmann is right - she fought the good fight even when it was impossible, which is why she must be stopped now that she's in a position to do something."

==============The House and Senate have several zealots on the Left and Right who are proud of leading a one-person fight on issue after issue they are bound to attract no significant followers on and lose time and time again "fighting the good fight". Kuchinich, Barbara Lee, Bachmann.

While there is nothing wrong with fighting a good fight on principle and losing....when it is the sum of your entire political life that you have no victories, only defeats because no one rallies to your way of thinking and trying to lead??? Is that the person that has the resume to "lead the nation and get things done" as President?

Look, Pawlenty just riposted each time Bachmann described "leading the fight" on an issue...."But Michelle - you failed to convince any others and you lost, yet again".

Revealing that Bachmann had no accomplishments in office since her Minnesota days, only defeats she was proud of.

Crack--gotta to tell you I do enjoy your commentary--and for the record I have voted for Ron Paul for president before when he ran on the libertarian ticket--and I agree: the guy is a straight libertarian, and there is no doubt where he stands. Regretably not electable in our wishy washy electorate. At least his son is a senator.

America seems to be unable to deal with a straight forward candidate--we end up with the dreck that has occupied high offices. Sad

Cedarford, I could rebut what you say, point by point, but I'll settle for we are where we are now because you don't agree.

Wait, i take that back:

Except for the fact he didn't fight back, there was nothing - absolutely nothing - I found wrong with the Bush administration. The criticism was all ginned-up bullshit, that people fell for like that Pawlenty slight-of-hand. Congress spent all that money and - because he was abandoned by everyone - Bush went along. For that, I blame those who abandoned him more than him. As I do for most of what happened domestically during the Bush years:

You, and the rest of the post-9/11 public, went insane - lost perspective - and can't admit it.

He wasn't a racist. He wasn't a spend crazy man. Scooter Libby didn't expose Valary Plame - all of it was a lie - and you fell for it. And are still falling for it.

Your ignorance, and what it led you to do to all of us, is your own fault.

Alright Cracki. We nearly agree on Ron Paul. He takes on the scum of the Dems...and GOP. Civil libertarians are not as evil as police state liberals, or GOPbots Paul's libertarian views on economics are limited, however-- Even Reagan supported some New Deal plans-- Paulism may do for....the people, or some of them at least. When applied to Goldman Sachs or Walmart, it falls apart. That said, Paul's nearly preferable to corrupt bureaucratic liberals , or the GOP-wingnuts. But doesn't have a chance in Hades.

I see "roach-c-ocean @ 1:47 AM ... thinks, here, just as he thinks at his soda club ... that it's the number of posts a poster posts ...

When he is such a clown!

Glad, at least Ann Alhouse knows how to run a blog!

Here, the subject is weather the "national attention" last night's debate got ... did anyone of those candidates any good?

And, then?

Here we write out our opinions.

I don't see any of these candidates in the White House following our 2012 election.

I see the race is still obama's to lose. (He probably won't lose it.) And, all the anger in the world won't bring back Jimmy Carter. And, alas, hasn't brought back Ronald Reagan. And, the ease with witch he dealt with 1980.

Of course, Reagan, having once been a democrat, himself. And, having once been enthralled by FDR's political skills. Came into 1980 ready to appeal to actual democrats. And, he knew how!

UNIQUE. We were so lucky, then.

So far, except for the religious hullabaloo ... I haven't seen a thing that demonstrates talk that reaches out to real people.

BOTH SIDES HAVE BROKEN HEARTED VOTERS!

I saw that in Madison's HUGE turn out for a summer recall election.

BOTH SIDES SHOWED UP.

Both sides are voting for "less than they want." You know? This is called reality.

Even in the hayday of profits ... sellers of homes were always so unrealistic ... the agents just accepted the contract ... Knowing ALL offers come in the door, anyway. And, only the most resistant, didn't take the cash that was offered ... And, ran.

It's the same in politics.

Where from last night, I saw that Obama just has to sit. The race is still his. There's no competition yet coming from the stupid party.

More like real estate now. Where even a low price on your abode ... ain't low enough to move it. (Let alone cover the commissions!)

The middle class died ... when the easy commission money tanked.

The uphill struggle? More hard work. And, harder to move the rock uphill.

Oh, yeah. When the standards lower ... Obama's ticket is worth more.

And, up head? You know I think Angela Merkel is about to enter the fight for her political life!

Omaba? He knows enough to just go out and play golf.

You bet, I'm watching. Because the outcome to "the race," so far is hidden.

Damn--I stand thunderstruck--the commenter known as J appears to be a libertarian in disguise--wow--just wow--as I said before I have voted for ron paul on the libertarian ticket. who knew that J and were brothers under the skin

Roger J--I said you were a perp, a lowlife, in short a scumbag. Not even a legitimate libertarian (ie, one who values Reason and the US Constitution--including the right to free speech--ie, dissent)--not the same as the bogus Vegass hustler-libertarian.

Damn who knew you were queer, Rogerski the perp. Paul may be the lesser of two evils--but hardly a great politician--he sounds reasonable because he's surrounded by idjuts, and he alludes to the Founding fathers, etc (and Newt's too cerebral for GOP as well). But that's a bit deeep for a Paultard.

Come on out to Ellay tough guy. Ill ______ you in manner of seconds, joto,. 405 and Roscoe. Goes out to any A-tard perp

Ah J--nothing like an internet tough guy--I figured I could goad you into a personal challenge and it didnt take long--you are really a pathetic piece of shit--unable to speak english in a understandable form and then resort to a personal challenge that both you and I know aint going to happen--but it makes you look macho--but you arent macho--you are a marecon son--a big flaming marecon.

The reason that serious issues aren't discussed is, that for the "average" registered voter--never mind the non-voting illerates--5 min into any such discussion the MEGO effect takes hold. That the Republic has managed to stagger on this long is ONLY because prior to, say, the onset of LBJs' "Great Society" programs (War on Poverty, Urban Renewal, etc.)the extent to which government was intertwined with the vast majority of economic and civic life was minimal by comparison to today, so the nation could afford to suffer elected fools--fools elected by a largely inattentive public--with minimal long-term damage--unlike today and recent years since which has seen the federal governments' all-pervasive intrusion into almost every aspect of commercial and personal life at all levels so that govt idiocy can now quickly spell disaster both to the pvt economy and one's personal life.

Yeah, but these GOPers pander to the point of absolute insanity. When they were asked if they would walk away from a 10 to 1 spending cut to taxes deal they all RAISED their hands. That is really crazy and frankly can't be believed.

If they were offered to cut spending by 90% with a very small tax increase I don't think they would really say no. If that kind of deal ever came along it would be a GOP wet dream.

He should have asked them if they would rather cut off their own noses or raise taxes....

Matt said...Yeah, but these GOPers pander to the point of absolute insanity. When they were asked if they would walk away from a 10 to 1 spending cut to taxes deal they all RAISED their hands. That is really crazy and frankly can't be believed.

====================Agree. They have deeply drunk Grover Norquist's kool aid and studiously ignore the actual record of tax cut job creation and Trickledown supply side economics.

They would likely all raise their hands if asked if it was wrong for FDR to have raised taxes to pay for WWII.

If asked if they would raise their hands to end Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy if Dems agreed to end programs for affirmative action, end the Dept of Education, Section 8 grants, eliminate welfare COLAs, end pork to blue cities, eliminate 10,000 costly regs crippling business all while Dems pledged not to gut defense spending - not a single hand would raise because nothing would be worth returning to the Satanic tax level Clinton burdened the "jobs creators" with.

Not that the Dem Koolaid is not sloshed around and grimly slogged down as well. Dems are convinced it is instant political death to ask any sacrifice from government employee unions, reduce any government entity other than defense, question affirmative action or Amnesty for illegals. No matter what deal you gave them - those are "no-go areas".

Wallace's attempts to start fights between candidates rankled everyone watching here, and when Gingrich called him on his BS, we (and the audience) cheered.

Perhaps, as a blogger, you've gotten so used to the horse-race and process stuff from the media that you've forgotten that these debates are supposed to be about "what these people think." Not about juxtaposed, cherry-picked statements placed in "context" by a reporter who is dead set on creating news rather than reporting it.

Don't feed Wallace's ego, he was handed his head and rightly so. Listen to the audience again, if you need convincing.